How Do I Look? Body Image Perceptions among University Students from England and Denmark

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 583-595; doi:10.3390/ijerph7020583

International Journal of

Environmental Research and

Public Health

ISSN 1660-4601

www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Article

How Do I Look? Body Image Perceptions among University
Students from England and Denmark

Walid El Ansari

, Susanne Vodder Clausen

, Andi Mabhala

and Christiane Stock

Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, UK;

E-Mail: walidansari@glos.ac.uk

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;

E-Mail: susanne.

vodder@gmail.com

Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, UK;

E-Mail: a.mabhala@chester.ac.uk

Unit for Health Promotion Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark,

Niels Bohrs Vej 9-10, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: E-Mail: cstock@health.sdu.dk;

Tel.: ++45-65504210; Fax: ++45-65504283.

Received: 20 November 2009 / Accepted: 5 February 2010 / Published: 21 February 2010

Abstract: This study examined differences in body image perception between university

students in two European countries, United Kingdom and Denmark. A total of 816 British

and 548 Danish university students participated in a cross-sectional survey. A

self-administered questionnaire assessed socio-demographic information, body image

perception (as “too thin”, “just right” or “too fat”), and the association of related factors

with body image perception (nutrition behaviour, social support, perceived stressors and

quality of life). The proportions of students who perceived themselves as “too thin”, “just
right”, or “too fat” were 8.6%, 37.7%, and 53.7% respectively. Multi-factorial logistic
regression analysis showed that students who perceived themselves as “too fat” were more

likely to be from the British university, to be females, to be older than 30 years, to report

stress due to their financial situation and were less likely to have a high quality of life. The

findings highlight the need for interventions with focus on healthy food choices whilst

acknowledging financial stressors and quality of life.

OPEN ACCESS

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

584

Keywords: body image perception; student health; quality of life; gender; nutrition

1. Introduction

In the western world, there is an increasing focus on body image. Pictures of movie stars and

fashion models strongly impact on girls‟ body shape and image perception [1]. Such mass media and
diverse socio-cultural pressures are seen to cause an increased awareness of being thin as ideal, and to

contribute to the misperception of body weight: how the body is viewed and evaluated by the

individual and by others. Hence, the last decades have witnessed surging interest by the academic

community in body image [2]. A complex range of factors influences body image perception. These

include socio-demographic factors (gender; age; country), nutrition, and psycho-social factors e.g.,

stress, social support and quality of life.

Socio-demographic factors (gender, age, country): girls are more likely to express weight

dissatisfaction than boys, and body weight perception and dissatisfaction are correlates for weight

control practices [3]. Indeed, an increasing public health challenge is that 2% to 4% of young adult

females have full-syndrome eating disorders that harm their general health and may cause death [4].

Similarly, men too strive to lose weight to conform to today‟s ideal body shape. Whilst many

studies have investigated body image perception in women [5], less have done so for men [6]. This is

despite that men [7] with eating disorders feel considerably more obese than subjects without such
conditions. Others have shown wide disagreement between men‟s actual muscularity and their body
ideals [8], and that some men were alarmed about being overweight, were dissatisfied with their body,

and reported an ambition to realize a leaner stature [9]. In relation to age, the association of the age of

university students with body image perceptions seem to have not received much attention in the

literature, perhaps because of the narrow age bands observed in traditional college student populations.

As for country, satisfaction with and concerns about body weight are affected by social norms and

cultural standards [10,11], where being thin is greatly valued within Western societies [12]. Social

judgment of appearance seems partly responsible for the unrealistic weight goals sought by young

adults [13]. Norms and socio-cultural pressures differ among countries; hence it is likely that the

proportions of people dissatisfied with their body image differ between countries [14]. The fact that

Denmark belongs to the Scandinavian regime that is characterized by high levels of social protection,

comparatively generous social transfers, and state-promoted social equality of the highest standards

may have a positive influence on body satisfaction.

Perceived stressors: stress has been linked to body weight [15], and is also associated with

unhealthy nutrition: stress not only increases food consumption in certain individuals but also shifts

their food choices from lower fat to higher fat foods [16]. Thus stress and dissatisfaction with body

weight have been reported as key risk factors in the aetiology of eating disorders [17].

Nutrition behaviours: nutritional behaviours of university students are similarly critical to body

image perceptions. In adolescents, body weight perception is a key determinant of nutritional

habits [18], and furthermore, nutritional habits and body-shape preferences vary across cultures [19].

Social support and satisfaction with social support: social support plays a vital role in the

maintenance of health behaviours and the stimulation of health behaviour modification [20]. Without

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

585

proper support and coping strategies, people might adopt unhealthy behaviours, such as smoking,

alcohol consumption, isolation, irritability, and disruptive eating patterns e.g., [21,22].

This study investigated the factors associated with body image perception among university

students in two European countries (United Kingdom and Denmark). One university from each

country was included in the study, chosen on the basis of research interests, existing contacts and

history of successful previous collaboration. The study aimed to investigate differences in body image

perception between students from a British and a Danish university. In addition, we examined the

association of socio-demographic factors (gender, age, country) and lifestyle characteristics (perceived

stressors, nutrition behaviours, quality of life, social support and satisfaction with social support) with

body image perception. We expected more males than females, and more Danish than British students
to perceive their bodies as “just right”. We also hypothesized that a low level of perceived stress, a
high level of social support, and a higher quality of life would be associated with body

image satisfaction.

2. Methods

2.1. Characteristics of the Study Sample

The sample included 1,414 university students from the University of Chester (UC) in England and

from the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) in Denmark. The UC sample (866 students)

comprised 76.7% females and 23.3% males, with a mean age of 26.8 years (SD 9.7). The SDU sample

(548 students) included 48.7% females and 51.3% males, with a mean age of 23.7 years (SD 6.3). The

sample included students from the different faculties and campuses at each of the two universities in

order to represent the student distribution. The vast majority of students at both universities had the

nationality of the respective country (at UC 96.4% from UK; at SDU 94.0% from Denmark). Response

rates to the survey were 89.5% (UC) and 92.3% (SDU).

2.2. Data Collection

Data used in the present analysis was collected as part of the Student Health Survey [23] in 2007 at

UC and in 2005 at SDU. After ethical approval, self-administered questionnaires were distributed to

students during their lectures, and participation was voluntary and anonymous. Classes were selected

using convenience sampling method. The selection of classes did include students from all faculties

and all campuses at each university. All data were confidential and data protection was observed at all

stages of the study.

2.3. Questionnaire

The questionnaire included socio-demographic information (gender, age, sex, and financial

situation), self-reported health data, as well as questions related to health behaviours, stressors,

nutrition, social support and quality of life.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

586

Body image perception was assessed on a five-point Likert scale adapted from the Health

Behavior  in  School-aged  Children  (HBSC)  study  [24].  Students  were  asked:  “In  your  opinion  are
you…”,  with  five  response  options  (“Far  too  thin”,  “A  little  too  thin”,  “Just  right”,  “A  little
overweight”,  “Very  overweight”).  For  the  analysis,  the  five  options  were  re-coded  into  three  binary
variables (“Too thin”, “Just right”, “Too fat”).

The frequency of perceived stressors was measured with the question “How much have you felt

being stressed in the last month by the following factors?” The factors included: studies in general;

housing; financial situation; and, workload in addition to studying. These were rated using a 6-point

Likert scale in the British questionnaire and a 4-point Likert scale in the Danish questionnaire (from
“Never stressed” to “Very often stressed”). For the analysis, a binary variable was created by
combining the two or three lower categories to one category “lower stress level” and combining the
two or three higher categories to “higher stress level”.

Nutrition behaviour was assessed by a food frequency questionnaire [25] containing the following

items: sweets (chocolate, candy, etc.)*; cake/cookies*; snacks (chips, peanuts, etc.)*; fast food/canned

food (pizza, hamburger, French fries, canned ravioli, etc.)*; fresh fruit, salad/ raw vegetables; cooked

vegetables; and fish/ sea food. Each of these items was measured on a five-point Likert scale: “Several
times a day” (1 point), “Daily” (2 points), “Several times a week” (3 points), “1−4 times a month”
(4 points) or “Never” (5 points). Using these points all food items marked with * were used to

construct a sum score named “High calorie diet score”. The rest of the food items were used to
construct a sum score labeled “Healthy diet score” by reversing the point scale (i.e., several times a
day = 5 points). For the analysis the scores were re-coded into three tertiles: “Low”, “Medium”, and
“High” score.

Quality of life was measured by the question: “If you consider the quality of your life: How did

things go for you in the last four weeks?” based on the quality of life measurement charts [26] with the
5 response categories ranging from “Very badly” to “Very well”. The variable was further re-coded
into three new categories “Low”, “Medium” and “High” quality of life.

Social support was measured by modifying the Sarason‟s Social Support Questionnaire [27], using

the question: “How many people do you know—including your family and friends—support you
whenever you feel down?” The numerical response was re-coded into “Low” (<3 persons) or “High”
(≥3 persons) social support. Satisfaction with social support was measured by the question: “Are you
on the whole satisfied with the support you get in such situations?” using a 5 point Likert scale, which
was re-coded into three categories (“Low”, “Medium” and “High”) for the analysis.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data was analysed using SPSS statistical package version16.0, with significant level set at

p < 0.05. Chi-square (χ2) test was used to compare the frequencies in the three body perception

categories between the two study sites and between males and females. Multi-factorial logistic

regression analysis examined the association of the factors gender, age, university, perceived stressors,

nutrition behaviour, quality of life, social support and satisfaction with social support with the three

body image perceptions as dependent variable (“Too thin”, “Just right”, “Too fat”) using the enter

mode and thus controlling for all other factors.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

587

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of British and Danish Students

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the study populations. Compared to the Danish sample,

British respondents comprised higher proportions of females and of either young (<20 years) or older
(≤30 years) students. Regarding stressors, British students were more likely to perceive the stressors of
financial situation and workload in addition to studying compared to Danish respondents. British

students scored lower at the “high calorie diet score” and higher at the “healthy diet score” than the

Danes. Danish participants reported a higher quality of life than the British counterparts. While there

was no difference between the two countries in the quantity of social support, more Danes were

satisfied with the support they received.

Table 1. Nutrition and lifestyle characteristics of British and Danish students.

Variable

University of

Chester (n = 866)

University of Southern

Denmark (n = 548)

value*

Gender

Female

Male

626

239

76.7

23.3

267

281

48.7

51.3

<0.001

Age (year)

<20

20−24

25−29

≥30

241

243

304

27.8

28.1

9.0

35.1

400

5.3

73.0

12.8

8.9

<0.001

Perceived stress

Studies in general

Housing

Financial situation

Workload in addition to studying

408

354

415

49.0

11.2

42.8

49.2

245

181

45.5

9.9

33.2

15.0

0.201

0.463

<0.001

Nutrition score

High calorie diet score

Low (1

tertile)

Medium (2

tertile)

High (3

tertile)

Healthy diet score

Low (1

tertile)

Medium (2

tertile)

High (3

tertile)

354

243

180

236

213

331

45.6

31.3

23.2

30.3

27.3

42.4

233

217

278

136

130

17.0

42.9

40.1

51.1

25.0

23.9

<0.001

Quality of life

Low

Medium

High

243

542

6.5

28.9

64.5

119

354

9.9

22.7

67.4

0.007

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

588

Table 1. Cont.

Social support

Low (<3 persons)

High (≥3 persons)

284

559

33.7

66.3

174

365

32.3

67.7

0.587

Satisfaction with social support

Low

Medium

High

473

290

8.9

56.4

34.6

214

295

5.7

39.6

54.6

<0.001

* χ

-test to compare the two study sites;

Low vitamins and minerals, high fat, high calorie;

High vitamins and minerals, high fiber, low fat, low calorie.

3.2. Perceived Body Image by University and Gender

Figure 1a shows the distribution of perceived body image by gender. More males perceived

themselves as “too thin” and “just right”, while females were more likely feel that they were “too fat”
(p < 0.001). Figure 1b depicts perceived body image by university, where more Danish students

perceived their body image as “just right”, whereas more British participants felt “too fat” (p < 0.001).

Figure 1a. Perceived body image by gender.

Too thin

Just right

Too fat

Gender

Males

Females

Figure 1b. Perceived body image by university.

Too thin

Just right

Too fat

University

English students

Danish students

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

589

3.3. Factors Associated With Body Image Perception

The proportions of students who perceived themselves as “too thin”, “just right” or “too fat” were

8.6%, 37.7%, and 53.7% respectively. Multi-factorial logistic regression analysis examined the

associations between socio-demographic and lifestyle factors as independent variables and body image

perception (3 categories) as the dependent variable.

The analysis showed that students who perceived themselves as being “too thin” were more likely

to be males and less likely to be older than 30 years, having a high calorie diet score or having a high

healthy diet score. Students who perceived their body as being “just right” were more likely to be

males, to have a high healthy diet score and to have a higher quality of life. In addition, they were less

likely to be from the University of Chester and to be stressed by their financial situation. Students who
perceived themselves as “too fat” were more likely to be females, to be from the University of Chester
to be older than 30 years, to be stressed by their financial situation and less likely to have a high

quality of life.

Some factors were not associated with any of the categories of body image perception. These were

the perceived stress of studies in general, of the workload in addition to studying and of the housing

situation of the participants. Moreover, social support and satisfaction with social support were not

associated with body image perception.

Table 2. Multi-factorial logistic regression analyses for factors associated with students‟

perceptions of their body image adjusted for all other factors in the Table.

Factors

Body Image Perception

“Too Thin”

OR (95% CI)

“Just Right”

OR (95% CI)

“Too Fat”

OR (95% CI)

Gender

Females

Males

1.00

5.15 (3.10−8.57)

1.00

1.54 (1.16−2.04)

1.00

0.38 (0.29−0.50)

Age (year)

<20

20−24

25−29

≥30

1.00

1.00 (0.53−1.88)

0.41 (0.14−1.22)

0.24 (0.80−0.68)

1.00

0.83 (0.56−1.21)

0.82 (0.49−1.37)

0.71 (0.47−1.08)

1.00

1.16 (0.80−1.69)

1.54 (0.93−2.55)

1.79 (1.19−2.69)

University

Southern Denmark (SDU)

Chester (UC)

1.00

1.25 (0.70−2.25)

1.00

0.47 (0.34−0.66)

1.00

1.88 (1.36−2.61)

Perceived stressors (high vs. low)

Studies in general

Workload in addition to studying

Housing

Financial situation

1.16 (0.89−1.52)

0.72 (0.39−1.31)

1.08 (0.48−2.47)

0.93 (0.56−1.52)

0.84 (0.65−1.10)

1.09 (0.80−1.48)

1.07 (0.68−1.66)

0.67 (0.50−0.88)

1.16 (0.89−1.52)

1.02 (0.75−1.38)

0.93 (0.61−1.44)

1.54 (1.17−2.04)

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

590

Table 2. Cont.

Nutrition score

High calorie diet score

Low (1

tertile)

Medium (2

tertile)

High (3

tertile)

Healthy diet score

Low (1

tertile)

Medium (2

tertile)

High (3

tertile)

1.00

0.73 (0.44−1.24)

0.35 (0.18−0.69)

1.00

0.59 (0.33−1.06)

0.54 (0.30−0.99)

1.00

1.05 (0.76−1.44)

1.29 (0.93−1.81)

1.00

1.48 (1.07−2.04)

1.58 (1.15−2.16)

1.00

1.07 (0.79−1.47)

1.04 (0.74−1.46)

1.00

0.83 (0.60−1.14)

0.77 (0.56−1.05)

Quality of life

Low

Medium

High

1.00

0.97 (0.36−2.64)

0.93 (0.36−2.41)

1.00

1.87 (1.04−3.35)

1.93 (1.09−3.42)

1.00

0.56 (0.32−0.99)

0.54 (0.31−0.93)

Social support

High (≥3 persons)

Low (<3 persons)

1.00

1.04 (0.61−1.75)

1.00

1.08 (0.80−1.46)

1.00

0.92 (0.68−1.24)

Satisfaction with social support

Low

Medium

High

1.00

1.06 (0.65−1.73)

1.50 (0.57−3.98)

1.00

0.89 (0.67−1.18)

1.32 (0.76−2.29)

1.00

1.12 (0.84−1.48)

0.69 (0.40−1.20)

OR: odds ratio adjusted for all other factors in the table; CI: confidence interval;

low vitamins and minerals, high fat,

high calories, high carbohydrate;

high vitamins and minerals, high fibre, low fat, low calories.

4. Discussion

This study assessed the factors that are independently associated with body image perception

among British and Danish university students, while controlling for all other factors. Below, we only

discuss the factors that displayed such significant associations (gender, age, country, perceived

stressors, nutrition behaviours, and quality of life).

As regards to gender, the study findings affirmed the expected association between gender and body

image perception: males tended to have a more „positive‟ body image perception compared to females.
This is supported by other studies showing that women were more likely to perceive themselves as

being overweight than men [28,29]. As our findings suggested, compared to men, women tend to have
a more „negative‟ attitude towards their bodies, and the desire to be thin is a critical factor in women‟s
outlook toward their bodies and body image perception [30]. Men find a greater variety of body shapes

to  be  socially  acceptable  than  women,  whereas  women  have  a  narrower  range  of  what  is  considered
the  „ideal‟  body  image.  Consequently,  women  more  often  than  men  perceive  themselves  as
overweight.  Hence,  dissatisfaction  with  one‟s  weight,  and  attempting  to  achieve  one‟s  ideal  body
shape are seen as risk factors of eating disorders and health-compromising behaviours [31]. However,

we found that even though it was mostly women who tended to perceive themselves as “too fat”, more
than one third of men also reported feeling “too fat”. This suggested that men too are prone to the
perceived „problems‟ of body dissatisfaction, and hence, as women, might comprise a potential risk-

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

591

group for the development of eating disorders. It is also noteworthy that almost each fifth man in

our sample perceived himself as being “too thin”, a perception that may encourage unfavourable eating

practices in the opposite direction such as overeating. Indeed, body image dissatisfaction is of concern

for males as well as females, although the distribution is different [32].

In connection with the second socio-demographic factor (age), the only significant associations

were for those students aged ≥30 years when compared with those <20 years of age. Across the whole
sample, older students were less likely to feel “too thin” and more likely to feel “too fat”. The lack of
statistically significant differences could be attributed to that the age difference (span) between the

students in our sample was narrow. Within a broader age span, Franzoi [33] found that although men

had more positive body images than women in both older and younger age groups, the gender

difference becomes less pronounced for those over age of 65. The social attitudes of aging women as

unattractive could influence females as regards the actual appearance of their aging bodies in a

negative way [34].

Concerning the third socio-demographic factor (university/country), the study findings affirmed the

expected association between country and body image perception: more Danish students felt “just
right” and more British students felt “too fat”, suggesting higher satisfaction of the Danes with their
body image. To the best of our knowledge, no other studies have examined differences in body image

perception between strictly British and Danish students, although studies among other countries have

been presented. Our  findings  showed that 20% more British than Danish  students  felt that they  were
“too  fat”.  One  potential  explanation  of  this  difference  might  be  due  to  socio-economic  and  political
differences  between  the  two  study  sites,  such  as  income,  gender  issues,  political  models,  and  social

rights, which could act as mediatory factors that moderate attitudes towards thinness and body image

ideals. The UK has historically seen a strong masculine breadwinner model, which has portrayed

married women primarily as dependent mothers and wives and not as independent workers [35].

Aspects of this norm might still be present and might likely be associated with women‟s self-perceived

body image. Within the European welfare states, England belongs to the Anglo-Saxon regime where

state provision of welfare is minimal and social protection levels are modest. Denmark on the other

hand, belongs to the Scandinavian regime that is characterized by high levels of social protection,

comparatively generous social transfers, and state-promoted social equality of the highest

standards [36]. On the general population level, studies have shown that overall population health

tends to be worse in the welfare states of the Anglo-Saxon regime [37-40].

As regards to the first lifestyle characteristic (perceived stressors), students reporting stress due to

their financial situation were less likely to feel “just right” and more likely to feel “too fat”. This is in

agreement with others [41] who showed a link between daily stress and depressed mood in adolescents

and adults. When entering university, financial difficulties can be a contributing factor to stress among

students [42]. Due to such expected influences of stress on subjective well-being, it is likely that

depressed mood could mediate the effect of financial stress on body image perception, possible

causing a negative body image judgement.

In connection with the second lifestyle characteristic (nutrition behaviours), the study revealed that

both the “healthy diet score” and the “high calorie diet score” were associated with feeling “too thin”.
Further, the “healthy diet score” was associated with students perceiving themselves as “just right”. It
is notable that none of the scores were associated with feeling “too fat”. The findings are supported by

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

592

others confirming that disrupted beliefs about one‟s body image can lead to dieting among
students. Inappropriate weight concerns and dieting could compromise the quality of food intake [43].

Body image concerns among college students dispose them to food restrictive behaviours and eating

disorders [44,45], to the extent that body shape concerns were considered a causal risk factor for eating

disorders in college women [4].

With reference to the third lifestyle characteristic (quality of life), the study findings affirmed the

association between a higher quality of life and the perception of being “just right”. Moreover,
students who perceived themselves as “too fat” reported a lower quality of life. This is supported by
findings that better body image was also related to higher self-esteem, optimism and social support

among women [34], all of which confirm the importance of quality of life [46]. Quality of life seems to

have a positive effect on how students perceive their body image, but the opposite direction of the

effect is also likely. Further, this highlights the significance of providing „healthy‟ settings for students

that would be conducive that they feel satisfied with their daily environment.

This study has limitations when considering the generalizability of the findings. Response bias

cannot be excluded, as some respondents tend to answer many questions in the same way [47].

Differences between countries could actually be differences between universities. As a cross-sectional

survey, the findings are associations not causations, with difficulty in determining the direction of the

effects. It would have been beneficial to link students‟ perceived body image with their actual Body

Mass Index (BMI), but this was not possible, due to lack of data. Therefore it was unfeasible to assess

whether reported body image perceptions corresponded with students‟ actual body weight or BMI. In

addition, some of the measures used, such as the dietary measures and the measure of psychosocial

stress were short form measures and had therefore shortcomings. The necessity of a general student

health survey to be conducted within short time in classes, however, makes the use of in depth

measures for each health factor unfeasible.

5. Conclusion

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. Factors which were

significantly associated with body image perception should be further studied (gender, age, university,

nutrition behaviour, financial stressors, quality of life). Interventions among university students should

relate actual measured BMI to body image perception of the students in order to target students at risk.

Furthermore, interventions should, depending on the relationship between body image perception and

actual BMI amongst students, focus on exercise, healthy lifestyle, healthy food choices, altering body

image perception, important stressors and quality of life. Universities should offer individual

counselling for at risk students in order to prevent eating disorders, and should offer psychological and

stress related counselling, but should also counteract unrealistic body image concerns of students by

broad health communication campaigns. Moreover, the association between quality of life and body

image perception highlights the importance of supporting students throughout their studies, and

provide healthy environments, both within the context of university and in their general life.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

593

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the UK Student Health Group, the Cross National Students

Health Study group and others. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive

comments that helped strengthen the article.

References

Field, A.E.; Austin, S.B.; Camargo, C.A., Jr.; Taylor, C.B.; Striegel-Moore, R.H.; Loud, K.J.;

Colditz, G.A. Exposure to the mass media, body shape concerns, and use of supplements to

improve weight and shape among male and female adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005, 116, e214-220.

Wykes, M.; Gunter, B. The Media and Body Image; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2005.

Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Chen, X. Measured body mass index, body weight perception,

dissatisfaction and control practices in urban, low-income African American adolescents. BMC

Public Health 2009, 12, 183.

Taylor, C.B.; Bryson, S.; Luce, K.H.; Cunning, D.; Doyle, A.C.; Abascal, L.B.; Rockwell, R.;

Dev, P.; Winzelberg, A.J.; Wilfley, D.E. Prevention of eating disorders in at-risk college-age

women. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 63, 881-888.

Thompson, J.K. Assessing body image disturbance, measures, methodology, and implementation.

In Body Image, Eating Disorders, and Obesity, an Integrative Guide for Assessment and

Treatment; Thompson, J.D., Ed.; American Psychiatric Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996;

pp. 49-81.

Davis, C.; Shapiro, M.C.; Elliot, S.; Dionne, M. Personality and other correlates of dietary

restraint, an age by sex comparison. Pers. Individ. Dif. 1993, 14, 297-305.

Olivardia, R.; Pope, H.G., Jr.; Mangweth, B.; Hudson, J.I. Eating disorders in college men. Am. J.

Psychiatry 1995, 152, 1279-1285

Pope, H.G., Jr.; Gruber, A.J.; Mangweth, B.; Bureau, B.; deCol, C.; Jouvent, R.; Hudson, J.I.

Body image perception among men in three countries. Am. J. Psychiatry 2000, 157, 1297-301.

French, S.A.; Story, M.; Remafedi, G.; Resnick, M.D.; Blum, R.W. Sexual orientation and

prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating disordered behaviors: a population-based study of

adolescents. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1996, 19, 119-126.

10. Szabo, C.P.; Allwood, C.W. Body figure preference in South African adolescent females: a cross

cultural study. Afr. Health Sci. 2006, 6, 201-206.

11. Jones, L.R.; Fries, E.; Danish, S.J. Gender and ethnic differences in body image and opposite sex

figure preferences of rural adolescents. Body Image 2007, 4, 103-108.

12. Demarest, J.; Allen, R. Body image: Gender, ethnic, and age differences. J. Soc. Psychol. 2000,

140, 465-472.

13. Wong, Y.; Chen, S.L.; Chan, Y.C.; Wang, M.F.; Yamamoto, S. Weight satisfaction and dieting

practices among college males in Taiwan. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 1999, 18, 223-238.

14. Tiggemann, M.; Hargreaves, D. The effect of television commercials on mood and body

dissatisfaction: The role of appearance-schema activation. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2002, 21,

287-308.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

594

15. Greeno, C.G.; Wing, R.R. Stress-induced eating. Psychol. Bull. 1994, 115, 444-464.

16. Zellner, D.A.; Loaiza, S.; Gonzalez, Z.; Pita, J.; Morales, J.; Pecora, D.; Wolf, A. Food selection

changes under stress. Physiol. Behav. 2006, 87, 789-793.

17. Striegel-Moore, R.; Mcavoy, G.; Rodin, J. Psychological and behavioural correlates of feeling fat

in women. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1986, 5, 935-947.

18. Brener, N.D.; Eaton, D.K.; Lowry, R.; McManus, T. The association between weight perception

and BMI among high school students. Obes. Res. 2004, 12, 1866-1874.

19. Sakamaki, R.; Amamoto, R.; Mochida, Y.; Shinfuku, N.; Toyama, K. A comparative study of

food habits and body shape perception of university students in Japan and Korea. Nutr. J. 2005,

4, 31.

20. Geersten, R. Social attachments, group structure, and health behavior. In Handbook of Health

Behavior Research. Vol 1. Personal and Social Determinants; Gochman, D.S., Ed.; Plenum: New

York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 267-288.

21. Pederson, L.L.; Koval, J.J.; O‟Connor, K. Are psychosocial factors related to smoking in grade 6

students? Addict. Behav. 1997, 22, 169-181.

22. Pederson, L.L.; Koval, J.J.; McGrady, G.A.; Tyas, S.L. The degree and type of relationship

between psychosocial variables and smoking status for students in grade 8: Is there a

dose-response relationship? Prev. Med. 1998, 27, 337-347.

23. El Ansari, W. Promoting public health: Benefits and challenges of a europeanwide research

consortium on students health. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 58-65.

24. Currie, C.; Sandal, O.; Boyce, W.; Smith, R. Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children: A WHO

Cross-National Study (HBSC). Research Protocol for the Survey 2001/2002. Child and

Adolescent Research Unit, University of Edinburg: Edingburg, Scotland, UK, 2001.

25. Mikolajczik, R.T.; El Ansari, W.; Maxwell, A. Food consumption frequency and perceived stress

and depressive symptoms among students in three European countries. Nutr. J. 2009, 15, 31.

26. Bruusgard, D.; Nessioy, I.; Rutle, O.; Furuseth, K.; Natvig, B. Measuring functional status in a

population survey. The Dartmouth COOP/WONCA functional health assessment charts used in

an epidemiological study. Fam. Pract. 1993, 10, 212-218.

27. Sarason, I.G.; Levine, H.M.; Basham, R.B.; Sarason, B.R. Assessing social support: The social

support questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44, 127-130.

28. Bergström, E.; Stenlund, D.; Svedjehäll, B. Assessment of body perception among Swedish

adolescents and young adults. J. Adolesc. Health 2000, 26, 43-57.

29. Unterhalter, G.; Farrell, S.; Mohr. C. Selective memory bias for words reflecting sex-specific

body image concerns. Eat. Behav. 2007, 8, 382-389.

30. Kiefer, I.; Leitner, B.; Bauer, R.; Rieder, A. Body weight: The male and female perception. Sozial

und Präventivmedizin 2000, 45, 274-278.

31. Tiggemann, M. The impact of adolescent girls‟ life concerns and leisure activities on body

dissatisfaction, disordered eating, and self-esteem. J. Genet. Psychol. 2001, 162, 133-142.

32. Kostanski, M.; Fisher, A.; Gullone, E. Current conceptualisation of body image dissatisfaction,

have we got it wrong? J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr. 2004, 45, 1317-1325.

33. Franzoi, S.L. The body-as-object versus the body-as-process, gender differences and gender

considerations. Sex Roles 1995, 33, 417-437.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7

595

34. Cash, T.F.; Pruzinsky, T. Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical

Practice; Guildford: New York, NY, USA, 2002.

35. Siim, B.; Borchorst, A. Kønssystem og patriarkat: teorier om køn og magt. Kritisk teori i dag

1987, 8, 127-144. (in Danish)

36. Bambra, C.; Eikemo, T.A. Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: a comparative study

of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries. J.

Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 92-98.

37. Raphael, D.; Bryant, T. The welfare state as a determinant of women‟s health: support for

women‟s quality of life in Canada and four comparison nations. Health Policy 2004, 68, 63-79.

38. Bambra, C. Health status and the worlds of welfare. Soc. Policy Soc. 2006, 5, 53-62.

39. Chung, H.; Muntaner C. Welfare state matters: A typological multilevel analysis of wealthy

countries. Health Policy 2007, 80, 328-339.

40. Navarro, V.; Muntaner, C.; Borrell, C. Politics and health outcomes. Lancet 2006, 368,

1033-1037.

41. Roy, M.P.; Steptoe, A. Daily stressors and social support availability as predictors of depressed

mood in male firefighters. Work Stress 1994, 8, 210-219.

42. Bojuwoye O. Stressful experiences of first year students of selected universities in South Africa.

Couns. Psychol. Q. 2002, 15, 277-290.

43. Woodruff, S.J.; Hanning, R.M.; Lambraki, I.; Storey, K.E.; McCargar, L. Healthy Eating Index-C

is compromised among adolescents with body weight concerns, weight loss dieting, and meal

skipping. Body Image 2008, 5, 404-408.

44. Stice, E. Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull.

2002, 128, 825-848.

45. Jacobi, C.; Hayward, C; de Zwaan, M.; Kraemer, H.C.; Agras, W.S. Coming to terms with risk

factors for eating disorders: application of risk terminology and suggestions for a general

taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2004, 130, 19-65.

46. Stewart-Brown, S.J.; Evans, J.P.; Petersen, H.S.; Balding, D.J.; Regis, D. The health of students in

institutes of higher education: An important and neglected public health problem? J. Public

Health Med. 2000, 22, 492-499.

47. Neuman, W.L. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Pearson

Education Inc: Boston, MA, USA, 2006.

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative

Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).